Will Elizabeth Warren Challenge or Replace Hillary for 2016?

The controversy over Hillary Clinton keeps on growing. The latest problem over her emails shows how vulnerable she is. Many Democrats are secretly terrified about all this, rest assured.

Nikitas3.com has said many times that a confident, outspoken Republican presidential nominee can beat Hillary because she really is not a good speaker or campaigner. The big selling points for Hillary are her fame and a media-contrived and feminist-contrived narrative that she would be “the first woman president”.

But in fact Hillary is a bumbler. Here are three crazy statements that she made in 2014 alone: She said, “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs”. She said that she and her husband are not “truly well off” with a $100+ million fortune. She said that the United States can advance international peace by “showing respect even for one’s enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.”

It gets vastly worse. Who could forget her tenure as secretary of state when the State Department had a prostitution scandal, a drug scandal, the rise of radical Islam in Egypt and Libya, the start of the Syrian civil war, the Benghazi consulate attack, and Hillary claiming bizarrely, “What difference does it make?” about the cause of the Benghazi terrorism.

The only other thing that is keeping Hillary alive politically is the ubiquitous and oppressive presence of Bill Clinton who still exerts a ton of strong-arm control over the Democrat party. But even Mr. Bill may not be able to counteract the growing perception that Hillary may be turning out to be the John McCain of the Democrat party – a tired old candidate who is the ‘next in line’ for the nomination but who really appears more and more that she cannot win the presidency.

So let’s say that Hillary has so many strikes against her that courageous Democrats decide to back another candidate. Who would that candidate be?

Well, the Democrat bench of real leaders is absolutely empty, friends. Joe Biden? Are you kidding? New York governor Andrew Cuomo? He is surrounded by Democrat party scandal and his state is withering economically. California governor Jerry Brown? No, he is too old, too radical and his state is in serious economic decline. Most other Democrat governors are presiding over economically troubled states, while Democrat US senators are a bunch of anonymous losers. Can anyone say “Ed Markey”?

Meanwhile there are at least 12 potential 2016 candidates who are sitting or past Republican governors with great records, whose states are thriving economically or recovering strongly under their leadership. This is exactly what America needs – proven economic leadership. Meanwhile Hillary has never held an executive, decision-making position where her policies can be seen as having a direct and positive impact on people. She has been only a US senator and a secretary of state – with a mediocre-to-dreary record at both.

There is one lone figure looming over Hillary, however, and that is the far-left Democrat US senator from Massachusetts named Elizabeth Warren who is the new darling of radical America. Warren even suggested that the minimum wage should be $22 an hour, while anyone in the real world knows that $22 would destroy tens of millions of jobs.

But, hey, who’s counting? When it comes to the real world, facts don’t matter to Democrats, and Warren is a wealthy socialist who has no idea how the real world works. She is a former Harvard professor who lives with her wealthy husband in a $2 million townhouse near the university. In other words she is a classic elitist who then preaches that “rich people” are stealing all the money from the “poor”.

Warren herself does not run a business in order to put her ideas into practice. In that same vein there is a famous story about the 1972 Democrat presidential candidate George McGovern who was very liberal. After he left politics he became part owner of a large hotel in Connecticut and lamented publicly how much the types of laws that he had been supporting during his political career were harmful to the conduct of his business. In short, McGovern was a classic liberal who had been ‘mugged by reality’.

Elizabeth Warren is being seen as the only likely primary challenger to Hillary because the next Democrat nominee is expected to be “a woman”, i.e., the feminists run the party, and because Hillary got gypped out of the nomination by Obama in 2008, i.e., the woman got double-crossed by a (half-black) man. Yet Warren herself has zero to recommend her running for president. She has only been in the US Senate for two years, like Obama was when he started running for president. And look at the dismal state of America under Obama.

On the other hand how about white male Republican governor John Kasich of Ohio? In just four years in office his policies have revitalized a Rust Belt state that was considered for decades to be doomed. Kasich is little known nationally, but he has something infinitely better – a proven record – while famous Hillary has no record at all except that she is famous and “a woman”. Nikitas3.com will take Kasich any day.

Elizabeth Warren has no record either. ‘Harvard professor’ is exactly what we should avoid on the resume for someone running for president with the economic woes that we have. She also spent some of her political career as a “consumer activist” in Washington. These types of activists kill jobs, not create them.

Liberal commentators like Julian Zelizer at CNN.com are trying to put the best face on Hillary’s record and on a possible primary challenge from Warren. Zelizer writes:

Most pundits have argued that a Warren challenge would be a problem that Clinton needs to confront, a genuine roadblock in her path to the presidency. The division and discord, they say, would be a repeat of the 2008 primaries where she ultimately lost to Barack Obama. But a Warren candidacy could have a very healthy effect for Clinton and for the Democratic Party. The biggest challenge that Clinton faces right now, assuming that she decides to run, is that she might be unable to generate enough excitement among Democrats that would mobilize voters and excite the media in the general election. Part of the problem revolves around the same old issue of “inevitability.” (end of Zelizer excerpt)

So there you go. Some liberals are now nervously assuming that Hillary really may not be our “inevitable” next president, and that a challenge might be a good thing. Because these media hounds can mis-report and fabricate the news, but they cannot rewrite the fact that Hillary has some real problems. Zelizer adds:

As (Democrat US senator from New York) Chuck Schumer recently reminded his party, Democrats do best when they deal with the issues facing the middle class and advance an agenda that focuses on economic security for all. (end of Zelizer excerpt)

No kidding… the middle class, which has shrunk greatly under Obama. Then think about those Republican governors who have strengthened their state economies to the point where the younger, skilled and educated middle class is flocking naturally by the millions. Not by imposing government mandates for $22 an hour minimum wages but with real free-market solutions that always work naturally. Zelizer writes:

If Warren forces Clinton to confront these issues and to articulate a stronger response to the economic issues of our days — creating countervailing pressure to the political experts who will implore her to stay away from these questions — it would only make the former first lady and secretary of state a stronger candidate. Warren’s candidacy would force Clinton to put herself on the record over how she would help the middle class — committing to the kinds of policies that will be desirable to many voters, including some independents and even moderate Republicans who are struggling in this economy and who are uncomfortable with the solutions offered by a GOP that continues to lean hard to the right. (end of Zelizer excerpt)

“Hard to the right”? If economic success like Texas and other thriving states means “hard to the right” then let’s go. But in fact it is sensible, thrifty capitalist conservatism that is creating prosperity, as all genuine conservative ideas are sensible. Zelizer writes:

There is also the virtue of Clinton sharpening her basic campaign skills. Although she has never really left politics since her husband’s election as President in 1992, she is probably a bit rusty, as her book rollout in June (2014) showed. (end of Zelizer excerpt)

Indeed black conservative Dr. Ben Carson, who is barely known across America, surpassed sales of mega-famous Hillary’s book Hard Choices. So Hillary really has another strike against her, i.e., Americans are not really all that much interested in her. If she were a Republican she would be dismissed as old news from the 1990s. Zelizer adds:

In the current media environment, there is no room for mistakes — and given that the Republicans might have some pretty strong candidates in the mix, she will have to be at the top of her game. Clinton is an immensely skilled politician and can compete with the best, but the challenge of running against Warren would make her stronger by the fall of 2016. (end of Zelizer excerpt)

No, she is not a skilled politician. She is a bumbler. And any Republican with a spine can take her on and win. Now here are two comments about Elizabeth Warren from politico.com, a liberal website, with a Nikitas3.com comment after each:

Politico.com reports: Whether or not Warren really can disrupt the multi-billion-dollar rock crusher of a campaign that Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton is putting together, we get a pretty good idea of what the party base and the political press would like to see. Right now, it seems that the fantasy scenario is for Warren to run, pushing (excusing) Hillary to reveal herself as the true liberal she was born to be. The happy story for Democrats ends as Hillary eradicates whomever the hapless Republican nominee happens to be. Nikitas3.com comment: No, Hillary will lose if the Republicans put up somebody with a spine. Once she is in the race Americans will have to confront the fact that she has no record of actual achievement compared to sitting or past Republican governors with successful records (Walker, Kasich, Perry, Bush, Snyder etc.).

Politico.com reports: While Warren certainly speaks to the enormous political energy among those who believe the system is rigged against ordinary people, those cheering the Democrats’ turn toward ideological purity in the wake of an election loss ought to remember that such movements, once ignited, are nearly impossible to douse quickly. While it might be fun for journalists and liberal activists to watch Warren hot on Hillary’s heels, the party’s chances in 2016 are worse than the conventional wisdom suggests, and Hillary is a far weaker candidate than coverage would indicate. Democrats are embarking on a very dangerous flight of fancy. Nikitas3.com comment: This is the first such comment Nikitas3.com has seen in the Mainstream Media saying that Hillary and the Democrats are weak. (Even Republican Jeb Bush called her a “formidable” candidate.) Meanwhile Nikitas3.com has been calling her vulnerable for several years because it is true. So always stick with Nikitas3.com to see the future and the truth.

(Note from Nikitas: Hello, readers, Please consider contributing to this website through the “support this website” link at the upper right. I have spent an estimated 5,000 hours over 7 years building this site and have received only a total of $30 in contributions. Otherwise I have never earned a single penny from this site but have spent many thousands of dollars of my own money on it. Anything would be appreciated, even $5. Thanks, Nikitas)